Was Lily good at Charms or not? ...Proof??

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 90849

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnbowman19" <jhnbwmn at h...> wrote:
> ... I just assumed that because it was an immensely complex spell, 
> that the natural person to do it would be DD because he is so 
> powerful. It would be possible for James and Lily to do it they 
> because Lily was very good at charms. 
> 
> thanks
> John

bboy_mn:

Were does it say anywhere in the book that Lily was exceptionally good
at Charms? 

I don't think it does. 

Although, I will say that it seems she was quite a brilliant witch,
and James and Sirius were also a couple of the most brilliant students
to ever come through Hogwarts, so to assume Lily was good at charms is
a very reasonable assumption, but nothing more than an assumption.

What the book does say is that is that James had a mahogany wand and
that the wood mahogany lends itself to transfigurations, and that Lily
had a willow wand, and that willow wood lends itself to Charms.
Although, I admit there is a bit of room for interpretation.

So Lily has willow and willow is good for charms, but we don't know
what the core was. We don't know the core favored Charms, we don't
know the length favored Charms, we don't know the style favored
Charms. It could have had a core that was strongly suited to
transfigurations. The thing is, we don't know.

That being said, I think she, as the excellent witch I ASSUME Lily to
be, would naturally be good at charms. If fact, even if Charms were
her weakest point, I would ASSUME that she would still be very good at it.

I'm just pointing this out, because people keep commenting about Lily
being good at Charms as if it were an absolute fact and a significant
plot point, but I personally don't think the evidence is there to back
it up. 

There are vague hints and it is a reasonable assumption, just as it is
a reasonable assumption that James, Tom, and Sirius were all good at
Charms. We assume they were good, because we assume they were good at
everything, but I see no indicator, much less proof, that any of them
were of the highest order of excellence at any one specific thing. I
think they probably had their one point of excellence, but nothing in
the books tell us what it was.

So, a safe assumption, but nothing more than an assumption, and one
that I personally don't think is of any particular importants. If
future books prove me wrong, I will be more than willing to eat my
electrons.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn